And on a related vein, many of the very devoted scientists that I know are also quite religious within the Judeo-Christian -- largely because they have spent time understanding philosophy of science. The two are not at all incompatible

I quoted this once, but will do it again for emphasis. I think that's the answer. There's way too much intolerance on BOTH sides of this. And the ones (including in this very thread) saying evolution is the only answer AND therefore Christianity is fairy tales are as much of a problem as the ones on the other side advocating not teaching evolution or teaching creationism as science. More tolerance and understand, and what djm talks about above is what's needed and what should be being taught.

I too am a practicing Christian, and a Republican (who's not real happy with the party recently) but have long since reconciled my own beliefs and how they fit with science. I hate the intolerance that this issue always exposes on both sides of the argument.

I quoted this once, but will do it again for emphasis. I think that's the answer. There's way too much intolerance on BOTH sides of this. And the ones (including in this very thread) saying evolution is the only answer AND therefore Christianity is fairy tales are as much of a problem as the ones on the other side advocating not teaching evolution or teaching creationism as science. More tolerance and understand, and what djm talks about above is what's needed and what should be being taught.

I too am a practicing Christian, and a Republican (who's not real happy with the party recently) but have long since reconciled my own beliefs and how they fit with science. I hate the intolerance that this issue always exposes on both sides of the argument.

I quoted this once, but will do it again for emphasis. I think that's the answer. There's way too much intolerance on BOTH sides of this. And the ones (including in this very thread) saying evolution is the only answer AND therefore Christianity is fairy tales are as much of a problem as the ones on the other side advocating not teaching evolution or teaching creationism as science. More tolerance and understand, and what djm talks about above is what's needed and what should be being taught.

I certainly agree with what you've written and if I came off any other way, then I apologize. One can be a Christian and believe in evolution. More tolerance and understanding is always good. I just have to draw the line when it comes to teaching creationism within the science curriculum. I guess you can tell by now that that bugs me.

__________________Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. CD

I quoted this once, but will do it again for emphasis. I think that's the answer. There's way too much intolerance on BOTH sides of this. And the ones (including in this very thread) saying evolution is the only answer AND therefore Christianity is fairy tales are as much of a problem as the ones on the other side advocating not teaching evolution or teaching creationism as science. More tolerance and understand, and what djm talks about above is what's needed and what should be being taught.

I too am a practicing Christian, and a Republican (who's not real happy with the party recently) but have long since reconciled my own beliefs and how they fit with science. I hate the intolerance that this issue always exposes on both sides of the argument.

amen to that.

__________________
"A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in human history - with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila." - unknown

Creation Isn't Science
Author: Jonathan Sampson
Many evolutionists and atheists alike have - throughout history - shunned Scripture and the lessons learned therein by claiming that Creation Science isn't testable, repeatable, observable, and so forth. As this is true about certain aspects of Creation Science, this is also true about certain aspects of Evolutionary "Science". One cannot deny the overwhelming amounts of assumptions and un-justifiable dedications that materialists demonstrate.

Both Creation and Evolutionism start with philosophical assumptions. Evolutionists (traditionally) start with the assumption that God has no intervention in this world. This isn't a testable conclusion; they didn't come to this conclusion by science. Creationists have the philosophical position that God has partaken in the history of this earth, and that He has revealed the True history of the earth through His infallible Word.

As you can see, both Creation and Evolutionism start with philosophical premises. There are many aspects of the Creation Theory that are indeed testable also. For instance, the Bible states that earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago1, in six literal days2. Evolutionism claims that the earth came into existence some 3-5 billion years ago3, over a very long and tedious process of formation. Both of these teachings can be tested to some extent. It's important to also emphasize the knowledge difference between fallible man (who is a fallen creature), and the Omniscient God, Creator and sustainer of all.

When man inspects the earth, the biosphere, the world around us, we formulate hypothesis as to how things came to be as they are today. After data is brought in and analyzed, we can test our hypothesis and see what outcomes we're given. Creationists already have the Truth; the earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago1. Evolutionists wish to construct their own truth; the earth formed slowly over billions of years. Both of these are subject to the same scientific method. When we observe the outpourings of data rendered from the science, we can see that the evidence greatly supports the idea of a young-earth (6,000 years old).

Now, we can see that both Creation and Evolutionism have non-testable aspects about them, and also testable aspects about them as well. Creation Science Evangelism wishes not to invite Creation into public schools, but only to have incorrect information extracted from taxpayer-purchased textbooks. Schools have a legal, as well as moral obligation to remain truthful to our students. Unfortunately, many schools today have veered from this path and have accepted voodoo-science as part of their curriculum. Material such as the gill slits, the horse evolution, the human evolution, the evolution of the giraffe, and so much more are still presented to children as facts, and done so dogmatically.

When will America - as well as the rest of the World - wake up and smell the indoctrination. Millions of children everyday are being presented with information that is testable, has been tested, and is now scratched off as untrue in the scientific literature. Even our SAT's are presenting incorrect information to our fervent studiers. Both Creation and Evolutionism are testable in certain areas and un-testable in others, both have been tested, and only one prevails - Creation. We were fearfully and wonderfully created, and we will soon stand before He that creates and give an account for the life we lived. Will you be ready?4

Additional Information:
These figures are found by adding up the genealogies found in scripture, and by Jesus' teachings of man's history.
Exodus 20:11, Mark 10:6, Matthew 19:4, and Genesis 1...
This number varies slightly with different evolutionists.
We're all guilty of breaking God's law. We've lied, we've stolen, we've disobeyed God, we've left Jesus' teachings, and we've followed after worldly things as opposed to spiritual things. On judgment day we will stand before the Creator of everything and we will give an account for that which was done. Will you be found innocent or guilty? Heaven or Hell? If you've not allowed Christ to be the substitute for your punishment, you will pay for your own sins - an eternity in Hell. But Christ came to earth, lived a perfect life, and paid our debts for us so that we might be reunited with the Father.

Wow T, you care to expand on that? Not quite sure what you're getting at. I think I do, but come on man, tell us more.

In general, the anti evolutionists tend to think the earth is rather young in the order of 5 to 6 thousand years old. The earth is made up of the material that results from a burnt out star blowing up. Figure out the time a star lasts before it goes super nova and the age of the universe is in the billions of years.

dawg, "When we observe the outpourings of data rendered from the science, we can see that the evidence greatly supports the idea of a young-earth (6,000 years old)."

I think that the majority of the scientific community (and many Christian scientists) would say that is not true. Both ideas are based on faith since no one has been around for over 6000 years, evolution however has evidence left that supports it, the Bible story of creation does not have any evidence.

This brings back that one word - dinosaurs.

But people are free to put their faith in whatever they want, thats why all ideas should be taught.

__________________
"A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in human history - with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila." - unknown

that is exactly why i don't buy the intelligent design hoopla. I have even had some them tell me that this is how "God" wanted it to look to us.

Listen we all are here on earth in this very day. I personally don't need to know where i came from or where i am going in order to survive. I personally don't care. My society dictates that i need money in order to live. so i go to my work everyday and i get money to buy things we need. i will continue doing this until it isn't necessary anymore or i die. Man created god in his image 6000 years ago so he could attempt to explain his existence. i truly believe that. we (homo sapiens) have been on earth for over a hundred thousand years. i truly believe this. there is nothing you can say or do that will change my mind about this.

since this debate is never going to end i am out of it before i call somebody a moron or a jackass. this thread will be the end of this subforum and i don't want it to be me that causes that. see you in another thread.

In general, the anti evolutionists tend to think the earth is rather young in the order of 5 to 6 thousand years old. The earth is made up of the material that results from a burnt out star blowing up. Figure out the time a star lasts before it goes super nova and the age of the universe is in the billions of years.

Ok, thanks. I got it. The earth is billions of years old. Maybe on the order of 4 to 5 billion. On this, 99.9999 percent of geologists agree.

__________________Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. CD

that is exactly why i don't buy the intelligent design hoopla. I have even had some them tell me that this is how "God" wanted it to look to us.

Listen we all are here on earth in this very day. I personally don't need to know where i came from or where i am going in order to survive. I personally don't care. My society dictates that i need money in order to live. so i go to my work everyday and i get money to buy things we need. i will continue doing this until it isn't necessary anymore or i die. Man created god in his image 6000 years ago so he could attempt to explain his existence. i truly believe that. we (homo sapiens) have been on earth for over a hundred thousand years. i truly believe this. there is nothing you can say or do that will change my mind about this.

since this debate is never going to end i am out of it before i call somebody a moron or a jackass. this thread will be the end of this subforum and i don't want it to be me that causes that. see you in another thread.

You pretty much have already done that to all of us that don't agree with you. You just didnt come right out and say it.

Why do people stop going backward in time with the dinosaurs? There was another explosion of life before the age of dinosaurs which no one seems to talk about. One of the interesting animals in this period was the eleven toed proto mammal that sort of looked like a dog. I can' t remember the name of the thing but now I will start looking.

One thing that I think is rather humorous about this type of debate is that the main religious issue in the 19th century was not the one(s) that Darwin started with his book but the debate caused by discussion of "higher criticism." Now that is a subject for conversation along with "lower criticism."

There were many, many explosions as you call them. Stephen J Gould termed this phenomonen 'punctuated equilibrium'. Which is the notion that there are occurances in the fossil record of rapid change followed by stability. This also occured during the evolution of dinosaurs.

__________________Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. CD

This is an interesting article. All they wanted to do was declare a Science Month. But some folks had trouble listing Charles Darwin and Galileo Galilei as actual scientists. Regardless of what you think about their research and discoveries, I think you have to agree that they were indeed scientists.